Travis County Commssioners Court
May 6, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 7
Let's go to 7. This is consider comments provided on Travis County floodplain ordinance and whether it should be made part of the solid waste sitting order and take appropriate action.
>> good morning. We have, I guess, a proposal back -- I suppose this dates back to April 8th as well when we kind of entered into a review period for considering solid waste siting -- facility siting ordinance that would pertain to major and minor facilities. The issue came up after bfi's sunset farms facilities provided comments, should you perhaps incorporate the city of Austin land development code sections in 25-8 that pertain to water quality zone definition and protection and so forth. So the court asked that we, number one, do all the necessary posting and so forth that we needed to do for consideration of that ordinance, and also indicate in that posting on the website that this issue of the previously adopted October second 2001 floodplain ordinance would be perhaps revisited or modified and specifically that we would be considering water quality protection issues as they relate to that ordinance. So the court further directed that I conduct sort of a pro and con analysis of incorporating these criteria or not. And i've provided that, albeit fairly late. And the bottom line is I ran through some scenarios just looking at simple setbacks that would be provided by the code, the city of Austin land development code. And compared it to existing state setbacks and, of course, the good old Travis County 500-foot and 100 year floodplain set back that's existing at this time. And it just appeared that on its face I could support this technical recommendation based on some -- I guess you could call them loop holes or at least one big one. If you'll recall there were a couple of notable projects that sort of brought us into the whole perceived need to draft such an ordinance or ordinances. They were related to projects having to do with either land application of septic or sludge or composting of the same. That filled this courtroom with a lot of concerned citizens and so forth, so after review of these varied criteria, as well as the state rules and regs and federal rules and regs, we came up with what I would say is a very simple recommendation for a 500-foot set back. The idea was that if there's one thing in the environmental area that Texas counties have a history of demonstrable protection of, it's the floodplain, so we used that as sort of a jumpstart and put a 500-foot set back in order, in place. And i'll be the first to admit that was based on sort of a worst case scenario if we got sludge or septic land application projects that are going to be put in place out in the county jurisdiction, not even in the e.t.j., Which is where these folks have been at least one project had been targeting, and perhaps we should put a pretty hefty set back in place because if you read the state rules, there's not a whole lot of -- there are protections in place, of course, but they are not very rigid. I think the biggest example of that is if you've got an agricultural setting, you're 200 feet and one inch away from surface water, you can go to town. You can put your septic and sludge out. Ferk, there are a lot of other requirements for that. However, what we ran into as we were going to public hearings and dealing with these projects is that there is a great reliability from the state's perspective on the ad heerns to these rules and not a lot of follow-up enforcement. I personally have seen, you know, photo documentation provided to the agency with affidavits and so forth showing violations that weren't really paid much attention to, so as I -- as tom and I counseled Commissioners court, we had to tell you, hey, this is a risky environment out there much that's why we feel like this stringent of a setback is appropriate. Also, of course, imbedded in this ordinance, this floodplain ordinance, is a variance procedure. We felt like there was a measure of protection for those firms or project applicants out there that may have felt like this was an unfairly large set back to come before us, and tell us what engineering controls they might have in place, what best management practices they might have in place to take the place of a lateral set back. So then we felt like we had provided an option. At this time the key issue of the sludge land application scenario -- and if you look in the backup, there's two tables in there. The table 1 -- scenario 1 shows you that -- again, kind of worst case scenario, but a setback that could be out there for any project applicant on a major facility, in other words, a sludge or composting type facility, minority water or even intermediate waterway would basically -- you just have to be outside the floodplain or you might have to be 150 feet from the center line of the creek. The state already has a 200-foot set back requirement for surface water, so I just didn't feel like it would make much sense for the county to adopt something that was less than that already existing state set back. So that's just sort of the biggest problem that I saw with it. Basically if you can meet the criteria, if you did incorporate this piece of code and they met the minimum criteria, you've lost your ability to negotiate any kind of further controls or best management practices. So I wanted to make sure that you were on notice that that could be an outcome of incorporation for this body, this land development code. [technical difficulties - please stand by]
>> so it's apples and oranges as far as I知 concerned at this time.
>> as far as our constituents, they really insist that we have the health and safety code to rely on in addition to whatever tceq has at its sfoaz al. So what -- disposal. So what our religious to constituents has been is going to be there's no way you can keep any of the sludge and grassy trap composting to occur? Because this is all we can do.
>> my recommendation today was framed around adoption, if we were to adopt those components of the city of Austin code that deal with water quality protection zones and so forth, that there would be a much, much smaller set back in almost all cases than what exist right now under our 500-foot set back ordinance. So I guess my position is that this court unanimously adopted that ordinance with the health and safety code in mind.
>> but I think in some cases they see that as a way for us to keep these composting businesses to pop up all over the place in southeast Travis County and eastern Travis County as well. So our answer is going to be -- issues I didn't understand your --
>> I didn't understand your statement.
>> they expect us to keep these businesses from popping up anywhere.
>> right.
>> so they rely -- owe they want us to rely on health and safety code and now the fema, the floodplain ordinance that we had. So we will still be unable to say to them, we can't keep those businesses from going in there as long as they have tceq writeoff.
>> if we certainly have the floodplain ordinance in place, we can't they will, we can't out right prevent them, you're right, but we can hopefully guide the sighting of those to where they're in at least the less problematic areas. As a matter of fact, that very topic came up during the solid waste work group, should we -- I think tom might have even thrown it out there, saying, well, perhaps we ban sludge or septic land application in Travis County. I guess there were probably concerns of that appearing unreasonable or arbitrary.
>> so if tceq is less stringent on these kinds of operations, there's no way that Travis County could adopt something that goes a little bit further in complying with the health and safety code and the floodplain ordinance?
>> no, we can, and that's really what the floodplain ordinance and the pending solid waste siting ordinance is about. I think between the state standard and the existing 500-foot county standard and the approach that the city adopts, excuse me, there are pros and cons to each and it's really just a matter from a policy perspective of what's the best fit. I would say that the down side to both the state standard and the county standard is that it's one uniform set back all the way from the mouth of the waterway up to the very head waters, with no adjustment to reflect the size of the stream, how much water is in the stream, how much runoff is going into the stream. I think the city approach does a much better job of saying where the stream is wide and there's a lot of water flowing in, then the setback needs to be wide. Up at the head water if it's small and you really have more swales or drainageways and not constantly flooding creeks, maybe it needs to be a little bit smaller. So there are pros and cons, there are upsides and down sides to each and it may be a matter of saying, bar borrowing the best from all three of them.
>> I think that's what I would suggest. Because I think I知 understanding your memo, but I知 not quite sure. And sometimes I have a feeling that we're saying let's back off, and I don't want to back off. I want to take the best from the city and the best from the state, if there is any.
>> I知 not at all suggesting we back off from the environmental protections. Quite the contrary.
>> okay.
>> the only thing I知 trying to get across here is that this is not a lighten defer.
>> I know. The city land development code and the environmentalization, 25-8, I really don't think that this court is served or the people of this county are served by those two little sections, just incorporating those and calling it a day. If that's the path you want to go down, we need to look at ces because the city considers all that. There's a whole host of environmental assessments on there.
>> I think most people in Travis County would expect us to do as much as we possibly can for the protection of their health and safety.
>> I agree.
>> so I guess as a court we need to decide how far to go and how much to take on this, but I know that as soon as we allow anything, the sludge and the grassy traps and those composting businesses, we're going to hear about it. And doesn't it make sense to spend whatever amount of time it takes to come up with a good answer for folks when they call in and not have to deal with each one separately? But the other thing that I guess we've never been able to fix, for instance, the proper notification to people who live out there in the county from tceq or from any applicant that they're planning a business. By the time we get notification, they're already up and running, more or less. And if you attend the hearings held by tceq, they don't really go into a lot of detail. They're just in the business of writing up permits. And that's all. That's not sufficient protection. So --
>> john, I have just one question related to this, just walk me through this. I know we've spent a bunch of time on this. Please make it so I can keep all this stuff clear in my mind. When we passed the floodplain ordinance, it was basically to respond to the sludge/composting situation. And the way I read your memo, those are the things that are the least likely to ever have one moment of engineering attached to them because of the application, etcetera. You're just recommending just a flat out 500-foot set back. Okay. I知 following you on that point. Now, in your mind are we setting that as a benchmark related to a setback requirement as we get on to all the other stuff that's located in a solid waste siting ordinance or are you saying that because this is the -- i'll call them the non-engineered kinds of applications, that this is a stand-alone set of setbacks and is really going to be independent of any kind of discussions that we will have on the others, would you lay out in your memo are pretty much have to be completely engineered and are much more complicated and are the kinds of things where you can appropriately take into account engineering solutions related to all of this stuff? So do you consider this 500-foot set back to be stand-alone strictly for the sludge/composting folks, are are we setting a benchmark for whatever time we move forward, related to the other facility?
>> well, obviously it is a benchmark because it's adopted and as it is written it is very broad and does pertain to all solid waste facilities in the county, including landfills. Probably getting under that a little bit is your real question, and that is as we -- i've been listening to y'all. I've been listening to you tell me we want to take this in a stipulatewise progression. We want to look at these areas where we probably have mutual agreement, in other words, major and minor facilities, put something in place, look at an odor study that deals with problems that may or may not exist or may or may not be able to solve at the landfills, take that information and that learning process and then move into discussions of how a siting ordinance if one is drafted that applies to landfills looks. And, you know, this, the proposal is going to that last phase, I mean, frankly. I would prefer to put off those kinds of negotiations until -- discussions until we get tow that phase. I've been ling to the rements recommendations of the court. You can't help but say it's a benchmark. This 500-foot set back is a benchmark that affects all facilities right now.
>> what I知 hearing here is the intent is you really don't want to get into a negotiation process right on things that are really discussions for another day. We all may have our own interpretation into what this means and how we will proceed on the other stuff when we get to the other stuff.
>> that's this staff member's position, correct.
>> quite frankly, this floodplain ordinance, I知 going to keep coming back to this that, this really was to try to deal with the shrunl, treated sewage/grease trap folks. And I do see the merit in when you're saying. These are the non-engineered folks and therefore we must have a great deal of caution related to the floodplain and certainly don't want to be any less than what tceq is doing right now and it just would be the easier way to do it. But I知 going to leave for another day how this -- I use the word interacts when we deal with the other major facilities because quite frankly those things are extraordinarily complicated and that to me is a discussion for another day and these are two separate sections.
>> let me tell you, when I talked to pat murphy at the city or I talk to dave fowler of our staff about considering any piece of that land development code that pertains to water quality protection, they get really excited and that's a real attractive concept to them, not just for solid waste facilities, but for all development in Travis County. So this is a slope here, and it may be slippery, I don't know, but it's a lot of work. I mean, that piece of the code is big and I would want this court's direction to consider any piece of the code that might be valid in deciding -- siting solid waste facilities and not just in the two sections they propose to us.
>> I知 finished.
>> okay, thank you. Let's look at this for what it is. We have right now, we've made a motion to post the solid waste siting ordinance, and I think by may 29. When is that day we're supposed to?
>> may 27.
>> we're supposed to hear comments and stuff like that and coming from whomever is out there and who would like to comment. But point is, the bottom line is that we hopefully will adopt something here pretty soon. And with regard to the ordinance itself, it has setbacks for all of the facilities that we're talking about here this morning, whereby they be recycling facility, transfer stations, composting facilities, sludge and all the rest of them. They have setbacks. The floodplain ordinance itself is a setback measurement type of situation. I don't want anybody to perceive that this court does not care one thing about water quality nor the environment, at least in Travis County. The floodplain ordinance right now that we have approved have a setback of 500-foot from the water. That is greater than any set back that the city of Austin has right now, even with the critical environmental feature, which is to protect wetlands, waterways, stuff like that. So we want stronger protection for our water quality and our environment when it comes to Travis County or any part of the county as far as it's concerned. And I want to make sure that very clearly in everybody's mind those statements that I just made. Now, again, we're talking about a floodplain ordinance that I think should be kept separate from the solid waste siting ordinance. The need for that is that the setbacks that are required during the existing ordinance that is posted for comments has setbacks within it. And again, I want to make sure that's clear. Now, the tceq, as they -- if the county (indiscernible). If it is not a standard, tell me if I知 not correct in that statement, is that this ordinance would become a part of the -- I guess of the backup or the requirement of the permit that Travis County do adopt a solid waste siting ordinance. Is that correct, tom?
>> it would become part of what?
>> it would become a part of the tceq to notify (indiscernible).
>> well, any Travis County ordinance becomes basically a supplement to tceq's regulations. The statute says tceq can't issue a permit or authorization for a site that doesn't comply with the ordinance. I知 not sure through the ordinance we can add additional notification requirements on tceq.
>> so in other words, they have acknowledgment to the part that there is an ordinance --
>> somebody is applying for it. Yeah, giving notice of it.
>> right. We're talking about public health and safety. My goodness gracious, what more can you protect the community as far as public health and safety is concerned by having -- and not only that water quality and things like that, by having a floodplain ordinance that we have already approved and keeping it separate and distinct from an existing solid waste siting ordinance which has setbacks. Now, of course, again, I think we can -- we can revisit this, but there's no way I can be supportive of any interference with the existing floodplain ordinance that Travis County has adopted at this point of 500 feet. To ensure in this community that we do care about what goes on in our floodplain. Fema has loud us to do that -- allowed us to do that. Now, we have mentioned non-fema stuff also, which is something that the state implements as far as their automatic setbacks. So the scenario of whereby we can't really touch, there are already setbacks for that anyway from the center line or even from the banks of that particular waterway, there are state required things. So there's really no state mechanism whereby we would not be ventured. So we have non-fema requirements and you have fema requirements, and which we have come up around the fema requirements as far as what Travis County is doing. So again, I would like to make sure that folks understand what is really happening here. And, of course, I think my burdening and putting another load on the existing solid waste siting criteria and ordinance which will come back before this Commissioners court on the 27th, of course I think it's something that those folks, as far as it's posted to the public, they've looked at it and they said and then adding something to it here and now in my mind would not be serving the purpose of getting this ordinance approved without any additional things being added to it at the last minute. I would like to see it intact and keep these water quality issues separate from that particular ordinance that come up under the floodplain ordinance that we have now. And I don't know, but right now the ordinance that exists should stay intact as is. I知 quite sure it could be amended later on on some things, but water quality I think as far as the public safety and health of this community is really I think a good thing. And again, the city of Austin standards, not one standard that they have that's more significant as far as setbacks than what the county has at this time. And I believe I知 correct in that statement. If I知 incorrect in that statement, somebody correct me.
>> that's my understanding. I reminded the environmental officer from the city and he was kind of like wow.
>> one minor clarification, if I can, Commissioner. I知 not have venturing any opinion or statement on or preference on what the set back is, what it's based on, what's the difference. I do recall when we started this adventure and we adopted the floodplain ordinance with the idea that it would be followed up by a more comprehensive solid waste siting ordinance, I think the discussion was based on my input that there are certain advantages to merging the two and having it all in one place. That's not to say you change the 500 feet or paik make it bigger, smaller, whatever, but just from a perspective of where it appears in the code and what processes you go through, there are benefits to having it all in one place at some point.
>> I wouldn't doubt that. If you heard me state earlier, I said it's possible that it could be amended later, but right now we're at the verge of getting something that we've been working on for too long as far as getting a solid waste siting ordinance in place where those folks that are in the business of dealing with solid waste would have an opportunity and also the community would have an opportunity to see what's on the table and don't change something in the middle of the stream. So that floodplain ordinance can be amended. But at this point the 500 -- the 100 year floodplain as far as fema is dealing with and as far as what the county is dealing with right now as for setting up the 500-foot set back from the floodplain itself, I think it's something that the direction I would continue to support until somebody can show me something better.
>> this may be a get time to get comments from the audience.
>> thank you, judge.
>> anybody any comments? John, don't go too far. I do have some comments osh questions. Please try to limit your comments to three minutes or less.
>> [inaudible - no mic] i'd like to say that the floodplain ordinance is one of the very good things that this county Commissioners court has done. And I personally, without discussing the faults and/or virtues of various types of jirping, I would encourage you to maintain the strict standards that are held in that regardless of whether they are incorporated into some other action or not because they are essential to maintaining the waterways and the various places that we have in northeast Austin, northeast Travis County that are being threatened at this point by a lack of proper engineering and enforcement of existing policies. Thank you.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. While I agree with county staff recommendations that the waterway protective zones not be made more complicated and certainly that the protective zones not be reduced from prior county ordinances, it is triewl true that the fema maps are often outdated but they they can be used for setbacks and specific uses. While outdated, it Moorely means that the agency must stay on the safe side and realizes when maps are up adaed it usually results in a wider floodplain and the treed need for greater protective setbacks. Increased land development and sometimes increased subside ans sometimes also results in larger waterways to be protected. The definition of the size of the waterway must be considered differently for landfill or a sludge farm for residents or a structure. When a resident sites a structure too close to a waterway, he or she mostly affects their own property. When a landfill or a sludge farm is located next to a waterway it can affect a large area downstream and through pollution of water supplies, it can affect the health of a broad region. A minor stream drains into a large stream and its water surface must be protected as well as the major waterway or the major waterway will also be compromised. The county should not abandon its responsibility to protect the public health even when a waterway is not fema designated. The patrioter that wishes to locate or expand near a waterway should be able to provide the data for the 25 and 100 year floodplain surfaces and the county should require that information under state and federal laws be copied to the county for public health review. The county can develop legal language that would not require the county to provide this data for the state or the private operator, but would require that the operator make such data available to the county. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I have a problem as to why we cannot use the 500-foot set back for all watershed and all solid waste facilities. We're not living in the 18th century any more. We know we made a big mistake in the past by putting any kind of solid waste facility next to a creek because we thought the creek would wash it away. Well, that concept needs to stop. If doesn't work and all we're doing is we're polluting waters. We're not drijing the water that is going -- drinking the water that is going in the southeast Travis County or northeast Travis County. That water eventually ends up in someone else's watershed. And I don't think we have any business polluting bastrop county waters, gone les county waters or the gulf of mexico. We have no business doing that to anyone. And no one is ever there from the county or especially from the city when there's a major rain event. So you do not see just how much water is impacting this facility and how wide the floodplain is. And the carnage that was created on walnut creek last fall -- two years ago in the fall in November, it was incredible. And all I head is it was a lot of rain, it was a lot of rain. Yes, it was a lot of rain and in July six months later we had a lot of rain again, and we keep getting a lot of rain each time. This is not a 100 year event, it's a 100 year event that occurs every six months. And I i believe that bill hilgers explained it very well at some of the meeting of the work study on the solid waste ordinance, that what was in place was not sufficient to protect the people during a major rain event. And that was for a shrunl facility. I am talking about a municipal landfill facility which creates just about the same amount of carnage when it rains because it can contain their slopes that are angled at such a way that when they design something, when they designed their landfill, the design is really the end product that is going to work without erosion. But in the meantime the 30 years that it takes to get to the end product, no one addresses that. So every time you have a major rain event, part of this landfill, which is not at peak performance, collapses, and you have erosion and you have pollution of creeks and waters. So I think for the facilities that we're considering in this particular ordinance, I am not familiar enough to tell you what the consequences are, but if you want me to, I will go after a rain event and show you what happens to a recycling facility or a sludge facility. I can put a work group together and we can tell you what happens because I don't think anybody has ever studied really what happens during rain events. And I think if anything the city and county should do is to put a study group together on floodplain issues because that is not being addressed properly in any regions in this county, whether it is onion creek, walnut creek, shoal creek or whatever, what the people are encountering and what the engineers are telling us are two different things. And the city of Austin knows that it has a serious problem with walnut creek and they know that they have a serious problem with n oncreek. And both of those creeks are where all of these facilities usually end up. So I think that you need to look into this more carefully, and as Commissioner Gomez said, we need to keep protecting the people under this ordinance or the health and safety code, and as john brought up, the variance is broad enough that you can accommodate certain facilities based on the merit, strictly on its merits, whether it can go there, whether it will piewt ploout or not pollute, based on design, based on operator, based on past records, based on compliance, based on all that you can make a decision as to whether you can let somebody in or not. But whatever you do, do not change the setback, period, on any facility and in any watershed. Thank you.
>> thank you. Comments by anybody else?
>> i've got my comments and one for the clerk also.
>> my name is john joseph, an attorney representing waste management. I will be very brief. I think that I would like to urge the court to avoid the compulsion to apply the one size fits all determination in this particular situation. Although it sounds appealing, I think that if you look at it from the standpoint of development in general and specifically with respect to the difference between engineering and engineered developments as opposed to those that aren't, it will become apparent that a one size fits all approach won't and shouldn't work. I think that you should look to the possibility of blending the two, the city of Austin's setbacks from waterways and the county's because as your attorney has told you, as you approach the head waters of a waterway, the definition of the channel becomes harder and also the setback becomes less important and becomes more of an engineering function as you approach that part of the waterway as opposed to a setback function. And I知 speaking from experience in this regard and having done developments at the head waters of waterways and then those that aren't. And from an engineering standpoint you can see how a development impacts waterways all along its course and not simply saying 500 feet is the distance that we should set back from a waterway, whether it drains five acres or whether it drains 5,000 acres. It's appealing and it sounds good and it will buy you some peace, but the one size fits all is not appropriate in this case. And I would urge you to please look at the consequences of that and also look at the application of the city of Austin floodplain ordinance and see how it might apply in this particular case, especially with respect to engineered and non-engineered structures. If you have any questions, i'd be happy to address them. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> [papers shuffling - audio interference] his comments on our suggestion to incorporate the city of Austin city of Austin's water quality into our ordinance. We haven't had a lot of time to respond to those, but we think john may have a very valid point with his comments as they relate to the sludge and accept taj land application sites and the sludge and septic composting facilities. Those facilities all rely upon basically surface land application for their waste disposal. We agree with john that they're very susceptible to storm water washout of the residuals that might impact the water quality of nearby streams. And possibly they could be better served by a large, mandatory, uniform distance of 500 feet. That's what the county has established in the past. Maybe that distance should stay for those facilities. We think the remaining of the fm falts that have typically permitted, they have closely developed engineered controls for waste containment, typically storm water collection and detention facilities, very well developed drainage facilities for the site, that a more watershed-size dependent set back business is appropriate for those, and takes into account the size of the watershed, the uncertainty in defining how large or high that watershed or floodplain could be and what would be better for that. So we would suggest a combination approach of a minimum 500-foot set back distance for the surface application sites, but for all the other sites incorporate the city of Austin's criteria. We think that criteria is well established. It's easily implemented. All the facilities are basically going to be permitted by the tceq so they will require an engineering study to delineate the floodplain. You just can't rely on the fema maps. And we know that they have inherent inaccuracies and out of date mapping problems with using those. It's not going to be an additional imposition on the applicants to do the engineered study. They will have to do that anyway. And if they're within the city of Austin e.t.j. They have to develop those water quality zones and the water quality transition zones as part of their permit process, so there would be no additional requirements for those. We would think that Travis County, they certainly have the expertise and the staff to review the floodplain criteria, the floodplain management agency for the county. I think additional expertise is needed there -- I don't think that additional expertise is needed there. And I think that the county should consider the city of Austin criteria with the 500-foot set back or the surface application site in their ordinance. And rather than -- if you don't like that idea, we would request some additional time to review john's recommendations and provide additional information in support of that contention.
>> more time meaning what?
>> we got this last night after 5:00 o'clock. We could certainly have additional information by the meeting next week.
>> let me fell you where I知 coming -- tell you where I知 coming from a right off the top. I try to be as direct as possible. Right now we have a posting of a solid waste siting ordinance, criteria ordinance that will come back to the court on the 27th of may. However, the existing floodplain ordinance is something that's been around for a while. It just doesn't surface. It just doesn't surface. So when you say need more time. For what purposes? In other words, because right now -- and let me state this to you. I think the city of Austin, even though they're under their particular critical environmental feature, they're looking at particular areas, particularly bfi, they're looking at that area as far as that floodplain area is more of a -- as more of a wet land. However, another question that comes up in my mind -- and I think you heard trek english speak to that, is what is coming off of that as far as water quality is concerned. And then what's being contributed to the unnamed stream, but which filters down into decker lake is the water quality issue in my mind. Now, of course, with the city standards as far as setbacks are concerned, they are less than the standards under the 500-foot set back as far as what the Travis County ordinance requires. Under the city's snare scenario, you, I guess, would be in a situation whereby you would have more area of looking at the floodplain, more area out there as opposed to what the city -- as opposed to what the county has as far as its floodplain ordinance as far as the setbacks. In other words, the setback for the city would be less impact on you than what the floodplain would be for the county. Is that true or not?
>> i'd like to mention that. I did want to add one thing. When I wasn't up here, you indicated that you thought that the Travis County ordinance was in all cases more restrictive than the city of Austin. I don't believe that's --
>> I知 saying as far as set back.
>> that's right: the city of Austin criteria requires for the major waterways, 700 feet from the center line of the waterway. If you include the water quality protection zone and the water quality transition zone. The county oshs is 500 feet, so there could be configure reagans where the city's criteria would be more restrictive than the county.
>> 500 feet from the hundred year plain is different from the center line of the creek. Don't try to --
>> I知 not trying to --
>> they're different.
>> clarify what facilities you're talking about today. What types of facilities are you really talking about proposing city of Austin land development code to be applied to? What types of facilities are you proposing that they be applied to?
>> everything except for the surface application types of facilities, and that would be everything except for the sludge and septic surface application and the composting facilities?
>> what would that be? Name that.
>> recycling facilities, transfer stations, landfills.
>> let me -- I think what's before you, comiksers, is a proposed siting ordinance on non-landfill facilities. So the landfill facilities will have to be dealt with separately and later, as I think Commissioner Sonleitner pointed out. For this particular ordinance you need to consider how you would like to deal with the minor facilities as especially sem lafide by transfer stations, recycling facilities, things that are -- recycling facilities are sometimes downtown. I mean, you find them on street corners.
>> but this --
>> if I could finish. But a transfer station is different than a sludge application facility. A big stream is different from a head water. I think we're all -- I think we all understand that and I think your task is to try to decide how to most intelligently regulate a variety of facilities that are before you and a variety of environments that they find themselves in. 500 feet seems to us to make sense or could make sense as it relates to sludge application facilities. Indeed, any number that you wanted to select by pulling out the non-engineered, non-landfill facility. You have that discretion. You have selected 500 feet. You could make it 400, you could make it 525. You have that ability and you could do that in this ordinance now and you could supersede your floodplain. Why would you want that in a minor watershed? That to me doesn't make sense. What would make sense is to apply the city of Austin's land development code, and you could apply it -- you could include cef's. That's not a problem. We didn't propose something in an effort to include cef's. We wonder if you have the authority to reregulate cef's, but we're not aware of any east of i-35 anyway. So extent owe issues what does your plan say for your channel reconfiguration on it? What is your setbacks at the bfi facility right now?
>> I don't follow your question.
>> the plan has your company's name and seal on it. What are the setbacks for your channel reconfiguration?
>> they're the setbacks under the city's land development code.
>> which includes what?
>> is the wetlands cef's. Overlapping speakers].
>> and the point that I was trying to make --
>> it's still okay.
>> let's get his comments. Are you done?
>> I think so.
>> I would just put in action today. Let's give it an additional woke. I think it's fair, jif give us an additional week to mull over there. Maybe if you have additional comments to put them in writing and get those to us.
>> if you would give them to us in writing, I would appreciate that.
>> if they're in addition to what you have here, send that to us also. Now, the posting is specific. It is basically whether the septic part, whether to incorporate the Travis County floodplain ordinance into the proposed solid waste siting order, so that would be the one that's out there now. Which excludes landfills. And I understand your letter to address that. It seems to be fair to take another week. This is a lot of information to digest.
>> and judge, I have some legal issues to take up with you if you want to do that next week too, or maybe on the 27th, the whole ball of wax. There are a couple of legal issues I want to point out.
>> my recommendation is we do it next week.
>> okay.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> yes. I want to make sure that everyone understands. Right now the 500-foot set back is for the Travis County floodplain ordinance is applicable to your particular site at in point, is that right?
>> at this point it is.
>> that is the point-- I wanted you to say that because that's the difference in what you're talking about the city and then county.
>> it is on the books.
>> I wanted to make sure everyone is aware of it. Thank you very much.
>> there's one other point that I think perhaps Commissioner Gomez is the only one who didn't seem to recognize this. I知 sorry she's not here, but I want to make sure that all of you do recognize it. Since the time you passed the floodplain ordinance and since the time that you have had considerations or concerns about sludge application facilities, tceq, the legislature has instructed the tceq and the tceq has implemented a permitting program. It's not like you can slip in during the night and announce your presence. That's too bad. There is indeed a permitting requirement and there are two types, type a and type b. If you are type b you need to have a permit by August 31st, 2003 or you're out of business. If you're a type a, which is, i'll call it the highly treated, the better variety, you're in business so long as your edge administration allows you to be in business. At the end of that time you have to go get a permit. The maximum time allowed for the registration pursuant to the rule is five years. So in less than five years every registered facility will have to come back in for a permit. Every registered facility or every facility that would like to be a sludge applicator would have to go through a notice requirement. So the issue of are people going to know whether someone's coming into the neighborhood and are they going to be regulated by anybody, the answer is yes. Now, john hit an issue that's correct. They're only regulated to the distance of 200 feet. Back to the comment, if you feel that's an inadequate distance because of the inadequate engineering controls, you have the ability to focus on the problem, which, as I understand it, has historically been the problem, and deal with that one as the problem and not throw out the babe with the bath wawrpt as it relates to a less problematic facility.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> this will be back on next week. Thank you very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 6, 2003 7:52 PM